Dear Joe:
I don't understand why you pick the most extreme example to make your point. I can drive from NYC to Philadelphia in that time, and BTW, nobody commutes this far.
Thats BS! It of course depends on where you are. In Chicago because of the lower density compared to NY or Philadelphia, you have to commute farther to get the lower price in homes or out of high crime areas. In LA because of the high land prices and typical spread out, you have typical commutes of over 100 miles for a large part of the population. The reason why Metra placed a station in Kenosha is that many people liked that it was much cheaper to buy a house or rent an apartment and commute in to Chicago and its suburbs. That is a 60 mile commute to the loop (downtown Chicago) which takes 2.8 hours on average during rush hour. It takes just 1.4 hours during weekends and off peak hours.
Metra takes 70 minutes to get downtown (NW station (Ogilive)) at any time for $12.80 round trip. Amtrak Hiawatha Express costs $21 round trip from Milwaukee to Chicago at Union Station (92 miles in 94 minutes) which has direct access to Chicago Transit Authority's (CTA) 2 subways (Red Line and Blue Line) and near to the elevated rail lines, Orange, Green, Purple and Brown in addition to the many CTA bus lines. There is also the Chicago suburban bus lines (PACE). CTA rails cost $1.75 with a $0.25 transfer to bus fee which also cost $1.75 with the same $0.25 fee to go to the trains (one transfer fee per trip). Thus it costs just $2 to use the whole CTA system for one trip.
There is a plan to extend Metra all the way to Milwaukee for about $18 round trip (the state of Wisconsin would pay to subsidize the trip in our state). There is also a plan to raise Amtrak Hiawatha speeds to 110MPH from the current 79MPH for no additional money (again subsidized by WI) to help reduce I94 traffic during planned reconstruction between the Mitchell interchange to the Illinois state line. After that it would be extended to Madison, LaCrosse, FonduLac, Green Bay and Minneapolis with MN paying its share of the upgrade and subsidy costs. Along with the Metra extension, there is talk of finally weaning MCTS (Milwaukee County Transit System) from the property tax to the gas tax. Its the only property tax funded large city transit system. Racine, Kenosha and Waukesha bus systems would also be weaned off and combined into the SEWRTA (South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Transit authority. It would also fund the Hiawatha subsidy and the Metra extension from the same source.
Pure BS. It takes 5 minutes (or more) just for the next bust to show up. It generally takes more than one ride to get where you really want to go, so you need to add an additional 5 min average for the waiting time for your transfer. Plus, of course, the bus drive time and walk from where the bus drops you off to your ultimate destination. Now, add to the equation -5F windchil factor we had in NYC today, or drenching in your sweat in the summer all I can say: "Where do I sign up?"
In Chicago, the Amtrak, CTA and Metra systems are located next to each other. And in that area of Chicago, there are extensive underground streets and access points. CTA at Union Station can load and unload buses (and taxis) under cover with greatly reduced winds. Just look at the below ground Wacker drive that is used in so many movies. Actually that is the ground level, but many downtown streets were raised to cover over freight hauling, trains and other dirty infrastructure type tasks. I hear that Chicago may extend under ground walkways to connect the two stations. So Downtown transfers may not even have to come out in the cold during winter and heat during summer.
In Milwaukee, we have something similar. A skywalk system that connects many downtown buildings. Above the Milwaukee train station, the US Post Office had their main distribution center. They are now moving into a bigger place out in the suburbs. This office has an area where the trucks were loaded and unloaded. There is talk that the MCTS Transit Center would move from its Cass and Michigan place to the old PO building which would allow MCTS, private bus companies and taxis to load and unload passengers to each other and the trains down below. If that is done, it is almost certain that a skyway will be built to connect the new transit center into the skywalk system. Then like Chicago, downtown transfers would not need to go out into the weather. And if you work downtown, you could simply walk to work in comfort. Tourists would also be served where they could go to the various downtown attractions and/or hotels without having to brave the cold or heat.
With this is really doesn't matter how often buses come at the center. Although many routes converge here, the typical time for most routes is 10 to 15 minutes. Some routes have the same stops for the first few miles, so if you need to go only a short distance, you might have three or four routes with buses to choose from. Then its only 2 to 5 minutes between buses. If the gas tax portion is high enough, most downtown routes will have 7.5 to 10 minute intervals. Combining the two, you might have to wait only a couple of minutes to get to a bus going where you need to go at the center. The situation is the same in Chicago with the caveat that the stations are not yet linked directly with a indoor passage.
Do to this by mass transportation (during the hours of frequent service), it would take me 40 minutes just to get to Penn Station, then an average of 20 minutes wait for the next train, then 1h 20 minutes by Amtrak at $60, then another 40 minutes to get where you really want to go (to the door). Did I mention that $60 is one way?
You can save money and double the train time on a commuter railroad (with some money savings likely).
Amtrak is subsidizing many money losing long distance passenger routes with profits earning from the NE corridor and a requirement to be self sufficient ASAP without dropping any routes. Using rates that other commuter rails in that area use with some state subsidies, they charge just $0.12 to $0.20 a mile for fares. Pusing this onto the 100 miles between PHL and NYP, would mean that fares should be in the $20 range. With monthly fare discounts of 50% (per Amtrak, the max allowed by law), that puts the ticket at $30 one way to PHL and $25 the other way to NYP (I don't know why the fares are different).
New road construction costs $8 to $12 million a mile (4 lane Interstate Flat Rural and Urban). 79MPH rail costs $1-2 million a mile including land. Upgrading that to 110MPH rail costs another $1 million a mile. In 2001, a bill was floated that upgraded all 70K Class I Rail lines to a minimum double track and added new and upgraded other terminals, crossings and stations for $71 billion. In 2002, the entire Interstate highway system comprised 46,700 miles. That means that roughly 40 thousand miles of track would be added or the equivalent of nearly the entire Interstate system for $71 billion. Reconstructing the entire Interstate system at 2002 prices would cost $467 billion or about 10 times the upgrade in rail for 50% more line miles.
Now a 4 lane Interstate at 60MPH with a 2 second interval (the recommended amount) would have 1800 cars passing per hour per lane. Thus with two lanes each way, 3600 cars would go each way. With the average 1.5 persons per vehicle, 5400 people would flow each way on that rural Interstate. A double track 79MPH main line can have mile long trains separated by 2 miles of space run 26 trains per hour each way. A mile of passenger rail cars is 60 88 foot cars. Using 2 for the engines, that leaves 58 passenger cars in each train. Assuming single level rail cars (Amtrak runs mostly double level cars), thats 80 passengers per car or 4640 per train. That means that a single rail each way can handle 120,640 people per hour or 22 times the amount of a 4 lane Interstate. To have the same flow would mean that there would be 22 miles of 4 lane Interstate for every 1 mile of double track main line to handle the same amount of people on the move. For 70K miles of Class I Main line, the highway system would need to build 1.54 million miles of 4 lane Interstate at a cost of $15 trillion dollars. At $210 billion, the 79MPH rail is a bargain. Even $350 billion for double track 110MPH rail is a bargain.
To see what the cost would be if the roads weren't subsidized, we should take 50% of the commuter rail costs or $0.10 and multiply by 4 (the cost difference between 110MPH rail and 4 lane Interstate per mile). At $0.40 per mile, the 100 mile NYP to PHL run would cost $40. Given 25MPG at $2.50/gal gas, $30 3000 mile oil changes and $400 40K mile tires, we get an additional $0.12 a mile for consumables or $52 per one way. With the additional charge for NYC parking, I can see where $64 ($2 for a bus ride from PHL and $2 for one to NYP) could easily be cheaper than using a car. Given max discounts and no subsidies, $34 total is quite cheap compared to $54 plus 50% of NYC parking costs.
NYC to PHL takes 70 minutes for the 100 mile ride (NE track is good for 110MPH). Thats 86MPH average. Google estimates 111 minutes for the same for the 95 miles it takes a car during normal hours (traffic)(51MPH). And that is given that 60-80% of NYC commuters use mass transit. Thats quite a bit above 20% of Chicagoans and 5% of those in LA. IIRC the last time NY transit went on strike, it took 4-6 hours to get onto or off of Manhattan. Add 5 hours to your car during that time and train commuting looks very good even with 20 minutes on a bus at each end plus the 5 minute wait time. Thats another hour for 2.14 hours versus 6 hours. <sarcasm>Yes car commuting is so much faster than rail given equal environment</sarcasm>
Mass transit already operates at loss in most places it is tried. You are proposing multiplying these operating losses several-fold, while increasing the average commute times, and greatly reducing convenience. Again, where do I sign up for this plan?
All non subsidized systems operate at a loss when competing against one that is heavily subsidized. Highway construction is subsidized to the tune of $150 billion a year (that includes new construction and repair of existing infrastructure). Given that 4 lane Interstae costs $1.3 to 1.5 million a mile to mill and resurface (Florida DOT), that would be enough to repair 100K miles of 4 lane highways per year or construct 15K miles of new 4 lane highways per year or some combination of the two. Of course that assumes that no bridges, tunnels or embankments would need to be built or repaired. Given that a resurfacing lasts about 15 years in Florida and 10 years up here in the snow belt (mostly because of freeze thaw cycles and road salt) and the underlying road lasts 50 years. Maintaining a 4 lane road should cost 14.5 million every 50 years or $290K a mile per year. A two lane highway should be $145K per mile per year.
Rail OTOH costs about $290K per mile every 50 years for rail and tie replacement and some extra roadbed repairs. Thats $6K per mile for annual track mile maintenance. Or $840 million for maintenance on all 70K double track Class I main lines annually.
There are 4 million miles of highways or which 1.2% (47K) are Interstates and 9.1% (119K miles) are other US highways. Thus to maintain existing US highways would take 47K*$290K+119K*$145K or $30.9 billion. There are about 20% of State highways (809K) which should cost about 2/3rds of what US highways cost 809K*$145*2/3 or $78 billion. There are about 75% (3026K) miles of county and local roads. Assume they cost 1/4 of state highways to maintain 3026K*$145/6 or $73 billion. That means that to simply maintain and replace what we have would cost $181 billion a year. Now we have about $40 billion in new construction each year and about $66 billion in maintenance and replacement out of that $150 billion so we are under funding road maintenance by $115 billion a year and its getting worse.
downloads.transportation.org
The real reason for this is that Semis damage roads at a rate of 40 times what cars do. Big pickups and straight trucks do about 6.4 times the damage of a car.
fhwa.dot.gov
Cars traveled 598 billion miles on Interstates, straight trucks about 18 billion miles and semis about 70 billion miles in 2002. That means using the above damage rates, we get 598*1, 18*6.4 and 70*40 for 598, 115 and 2800 car equivalent billion miles for a total of 3513 billion car damage miles. Thus cars do about 17% of the damage, trucks do 3.3% and semis do 79.7%. To put it in dollar amounts given the above $13.6 billion in annual Interstate maintenance costs, $2.3, 0.4 and 10.9 billion respectively.
To reduce maintenance costs, we need to lower semi VMTs drastically. By using more intermodal, we should be able to get between 75 and 85% of semi VMTs removed. And about 25% of car Interstate using car trains. That would cut $9.3 billion from Interstate maintenance costs or about 68%. About a third of other US highway costs could like be removed as well or about $5.7 billion more. Thats $15 billion alone from annual maintenance or enough to pay for the 70K double tracking and other upgrades to all 70K Class I main lines in just 5 years. Assuming 140K Class I track miles, each additional year of savings can pay for over 17 years of annual rail maintenance. Given 6% of real rate of return, that means that just one year of additional road maintenance savings can maintain the entire 70K Class I double track main line system.
And state and local highways and roads would see equivalent reductions. They have lower damage because the vehicles average slower speeds and damage goes up by the cube of the speed. A 75MPH semi does 3.375 times the damage it does at 50MPH and 11.4 times what it does at 25MPH.
By using buses and trains for intracity travel, state, local and county roads would be damaged less and those who still travel the roads would face far less congestion. That would save pollution, gas, money, wear & tear and time.
Pete
PS. Another large benefit would be to force sychronization of controlled intersections to allow continuous transit at posted speeds on arterial roads. If it can't be synchronized, it should be removed. That should also include unnecessary stop signs as well. No more traffic lights at every corner and no more stopping traffic to view stores, etc. With traffic lights needing $50K in annual maintenance and vehicles stopping, standing and starting less, fuel, pollution and time would be saved. IT also should cut down on accidents. |
